Political Economy Principles of Constitutionalism

Questions: 1. Read Tom Velks remarks in the course outline for week nine, and base your answer on them. What is the rule of law? What is the paramount idea underlying the rule of law? Read about the six families of law. Describe how laws are limited in at least three of the types of laws discussed in Velks notes. 2. Rule by a Higher Law, natural law, common law What does ''the rule by a higher law" mean? Describe three ways in which it could be interpreted politically, and the consequences of so doing. Identify two concepts of constitutional government. Explain how the constitution and its supremacy are conceptualized differently in each of the concepts above, and associate your answer with the idea of "the higher law". Answers: 1. Rule of Law has been refers to as the law was sovereign, not people (Billingsley, 2002). The law was written and has been produced in a transparent way as it has been attained by the approval of the people. It has been profoundly restricted in scope, so that jurist and lawful experts could understand its meaning and restrict its application, interpretation of it were made by jurists rather than by the legislature or the executive. Verdicts made under it was a case of open public record, the individuals and enterprises that form the population of jurists were selected by an open procedure made on the basis of merit and expertise perhaps with an electoral element. In the Western tradition of Rule of law the idea that law has limits was supreme. There were five different families of law. The importance of these families was the extent to which each kind of law has strong restriction like: True family law (a 6th class) was the rule by which ordinary, extended families were governed was in some communities subject to few restrictions. So the privileges and powers of self determination were limited for children, women, etc who were highly relied upon a pater familias. Families Include: Administrative rules of convenience which were established by administrators and bureaucrats but the rules themselves the procedure that unearths them and their unintended outcomes were subject to review; Legislative rules were formulated by a republican house of government; all acts of the legislature were subject to scrutiny by a free press, aided by experts in the law; Private laws were formed by individual agreements between among the parties. Personal agreements have full lawful standing. Agreements were rules governing specific actions affecting contracting parties. The agreements assign duties, responsibilities and benefits, distributing these within the circle of contracting entities; Constitutional laws; Natural laws. And so, in the Western custom of rule of law the scheme that law has restrictions was paramount. The epitomize plan was uniformly significant; each person should be as little controlled as potential by common lawful power, except when personal contractual contracts permit privileges to be enclosed. There were three laws I which the laws were limited such as: Family law- It was the most primitive or at least the oldest kind of rule system which alck in formal limits to reach and to its sometimes unbridled severity which grants some credence to the notion that law advances to the degree it becomes limited. In Constitutional law it has been outlined in the organizational plan of government that the names authorities of the government and the explicit distribution of those powers were limited across all the parts of the government. The natural laws were also limited by the most fundamental elements of rule of law. 2. The rule as per a higher law has been defined as no rule may be imposed by the government unless it was conventional to some common rationales of equality, ethics and fair dealing. So, the rule as per the higher law may provide as a sensible lawful criteria to meet the criteria of the examples of political or efficient decision- making, when a government even though working in consistency with perceptibly distinct and correctly passed lawful regulations, still constructs fallout which many spectators find inequitable or undeserved (Dunkin, 2015). It could be interpreted politically in this context as the divine or natural law or basic lawful beliefs as founded in the international law. And it was interpreted as it is now because it was considered as a law above the law as possess equal lawful beliefs for both common and civil law jurisdictions. This scheme of Kants has turned out to be the establishment for the lawful supposition of the 21st century. The lawful state idea was founded on the thoughts initiated by Immanuel Kant, for instance, in his foundation of the Metaphysic of Ethics: The job of launching a worldwide and enduring passive existence was not only an element of assumption of law within the structure of untainted cause, but per se and complete and final aim. To attain this objective, a state must turn out to be the society of a variety of individuals, alive offered with legislative assurances of their land privileges protected by an ordinary constitution. The preeminence of this constitution must be derivative on a first basis from the deliberation for accomplishment of the complete model in the most reasonable and just association of individuals life under the guidance of public law. The Russian lawful scheme, established in the 19th century as an outcome of the alterations founded by the improvements of the Emperor Alexander II, was stranded chiefly upon the German lawful custom. It was from the second part that Russia had accepted the policy of Rechtsstaat, which exactly defined as "Lawful State." Its neighboring English word was "the rule of law." The Russian Lawful state idea assumes the non-verbal constitution as the country's ultimate law (the rule of constitution). It was an essential but indeterminate standard that emerge in the initial dispositive section of Russias post-Communist constitution: "The Russian Federation, the state represents a self-governing federative lawful state with a republican figure of ascendancy." The two concepts of constitutional governments were: The Legal state concept and the Russian Legal state concept. The Rechtsstaat doctrine was initially established by the German theorist Kant in his current works which were finished after U.S. and French Constitution has been accepted. His approach was founded on the superiority of the countrys non-verbal constitution founded by utilizing the higher law principle. This superiority meant making assurances for the implementation of his belief which was a peaceful life as a basic stipulation for the wealth of the residents. References Billingsley, B. (2002). The Rule of Law: What is it? Why should we care?. Retrieved on 5th November2016 from: https://www.lawnow.org/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-why-should-we-care/ Dunkin, T. (2015). Principles of Constitutionalism: The Rule of Law versus the Rule of Rules. Retrieved on 5th November2016 from: https://canadafreepress.com/article/principles-of-constitutionalism-the-rule-of-law-versus-the-rule-of-rules